GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a kotou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I apologise to the House, firstly. I have a cold and I am slowly losing my voice. I acknowledge the hard work of the Commerce Committee members.
I might be a geek, but I am not the type that can fix a computer. Information and communications technology is one of my 11 portfolios, so I have a bundle, and to be honest I do not have a huge history of looking into technology or copyright issues. But I want to acknowledge that I really did enjoy hearing the submissions on this bill and learning more.
I love New Zealand music, I love New Zealand film, and I want those artists to make a fair living through their art. I thank all the submitters. The message I heard from them was clear, and that is why the Green Party will be opposing the bill tonight, because we have always opposed, and we continue to oppose, termination or account suspension as a remedy for file infringing whenever it is written into legislation. Even if not immediately enacted, the termination provision should not be there—full stop.
The Green Party also opposes the use of urgency to pass all stages of this bill through the House with no warning that it was coming.
Tonight I will touch a little on my personal reflections on the select committee process, highlight the improvements that have been made—because some were made in the select committee—and, lastly, explain the reasons why the Green Party will be opposing this bill tonight.
Without any technical background except maybe website surfing, gaming, and, no doubt, unintentionally listening to pirated material, I went to the select committee to hear submissions on the bill. I went in with an open mind and I met both sides of the debate outside the room. In my first reading speech I focused on how the internet had built connections, increased global communications, contributed to more collaborative ways of working, and revolutionised business and the global economy. The internet has unleashed fantastic creativity, from the arts to academia and business. However, making a business out of creativity is in some cases not viable, because of illegal file-sharing.
The Green Party supported this bill at its first reading, stating that although we did not think it would solve all the problems, it might play a part in the solution, and we looked forward to hearing more in the select committee. The Green Party thinks the current bill is significantly better than its predecessor, the draconian section 92A, which was put forward by Labour under the last term. This bill repeals the existing section 92A legislation and replaces it with a notice on notice system, which copyright holders can then use to go to an internet service provider that has the power to ultimately go to the tribunal to ask for penalties for repeated copyright infringement. I think it is important to remind this House that the Green Party was the only party in this House to oppose the section 92A nonsense, and we offered amendments in an attempt to fix it.
I acknowledge that significant improvements were made in the select committee to this bill. Those changes included clearing up the definition of internet service providers and excluding universities, limiting the scope to cover only file-sharing technology, not one-offs from email or websites, and amending rules so that internet service providers are no longer required to consider whether to accept, reject, or refer-on challenges to rights-holders. All challenges are now passed on to the rights-holder.
It is good to see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper from Minister Power on the table addressing section 122, which is the "guilt on accusation" section. However, the financial damages include a punitive element and are not merely compensatory. This is especially important in New Zealand, where often we are at the end of US or European-based supply chains. We can wait months or sometimes years to get access to content that is freely available overseas. The introduction of a compensatory penalty or, more controversially, a zero-dollar penalty for infringing against international products that are not available in New Zealand may have encouraged rights-holders to provide digital content sooner to Kiwis.
Internet account suspension as a remedy for file sharing was the big issue at the Commerce Committee, and the one that many submitted on. Opposition determination was clear from independent groups and consumers, as was the desire to wave this termination stick by rights-holders. The key question at the committee was whether suspension of a person's Internet account for copyright infringement a needed deterrent tool that would, however unlikely, actually be used by copyright-holders, or was it an ineffective tool, or, as David Farrar put it, "an unproportional response and a bad precedent".
In the end the select committee reached a compromise whereby termination was drafted into law as a remedy, but available only if the Minister enacted it in the termination clause. I like compromise and the idea of parties working together towards a solution so I was initially very keen on it. But in the end, after really searching within myself, I came to the conclusion there was no way Parliament should be drafting into law something so disproportionate to the problem it causes, that will not stop the pirating of copyright material, and that could take away people's access to the Internet, which in today's wide world is, I believe, a human right. We should remember that file infringing is a civil offence not a criminal offence.
Often people are sharing files because they are simply not available in New Zealand because of the antiquated distribution system of the global behemoth who use it extract as much profit as possible. We should also remember that net profits have increased in the digital age for many film and music industry players, and only certain distribution channels have dropped precariously. Ultimately, I think termination should never, ever be written into legislation. We believe it sets a bad precedent as disproportionate to the problem and that it will not solve the issue.
The Green Party asserts that there is danger in heavy-handed regulation for a problem—which may be only temporary—as a result of new technologies upsetting traditional business models. The use of fines rather than Internet suspension is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing and I believe that punishment should be proportionate to the offence. Citizens are not denied the right to use their telephone because it happened to be used in the commission of a crime, and this legislation should not set any precedent. Access to the Internet has become a necessity in an era where more and more public services are provided only online.
An additional risk from the select committee's compromise is that far from a compromise, it is likely just to delay. We cannot support this being written into law. The compromise deal reached to secure the Labour Party's support was to avoid responsibility and pass the decision on to the Minister. Parliament should be the determiner of this, not the current or a future Minister, no matter how well-intentioned their comments. The Minister, who obviously supported termination in the original bill, will now likely face an intense lobbying push by rights-holders to have this stick and wave it at Kiwis as soon as they can. As the Creative Freedom Foundation has pointed out, this is not a solution. In fact, it is a massive problem because there are no Government statistics about infringing Internet downloading in New Zealand. The decision would be made on lobbying and Internet termination would be enabled in Cabinet, not in this debating Chamber.
In summary, the Green Party thinks this bill is significantly better than its predecessor. We are glad to see the changes made in the select committee, and we are happy that there was a compromise made at the select committee, so that termination will not be enacted immediately. However, we believe it is just a delay, and we cannot support termination being written into law. We support the "three strikes" notice on notice system, and believe notices and fines will be sufficient. Research commissioned by the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft found that a notice from the internet service provider would be enough to stop 71 percent of New Zealand young people further accessing illegal copies of digital files. We support Kiwi rights-holders and Kiwi artists, and we think the use of notices and fines, rather than internet suspension, is a more appropriate sanction for file sharing. Access to the internet is vital for engagement with our modern world, and the Green Party will have no part in legislating it away from the people. Kia ora.
Subscribe to email newsletters
